The music "industry"

[Hwoof]

Now I'm not one to go on long rants (well actually, that's a lie) but one thing that really urks me, or "grinds me gears", as some refer to it, is the music industry.

Now you might be thinking, "OH ANOTHER IDIOT METAL HEAD HERP DERP" (sarcasm gents/ladies) etc, etc. That's not the point I'm trying to raise here, it's got nothing to do with the music that is being produced and published in itself. I love music and I love a lot of popular acts from alot of genres.

What I dislike is the fact that music itself is now (and has been for a long time) considered an industry, a mere method of profiteering.

Music to me is something that all people are capable of (so long as they want to do it and so long as they don't have any inherent disabilities preventing them from doing so) and is a form of self expression and creative genius at its finest. I can appreciate music, and I'm sure plenty people will agree, more than they can appreciate other art mediums.

Now, not that I'm saying
HUUURRRR BOYCOTT THE INDUSTRY! Because plenty of good has come out of it, it's just that to me it seems like an absurd idea to label people's creative and intellectual property with a "for sale sign", and instantly all those who don't measure up to the industry's money making standards are to be excluded altogether?


Well I suppose in the end you can apply this to all art mediums, and you can say that ultimately it all comes down to money. How much can we make, and will we continue to make it?

Ah well. Opinions, thoughts and suggestions?

 

[BonsaiK]

Hello. I work in the music industry.

Not sure exactly what the point of what you're saying is. Sure, the music industry is there partly to make money (it's called an "industry" after all) but then, isn't every industry? Paintings make money too, so do statues, movies, books and many other things considered creative by nature...

 

[Hwoof]

Hello. I work in the music industry.

Not sure exactly what the point of what you're saying is. Sure, the music industry is there partly to make money (it's called an "industry" after all) but then, isn't every industry? Paintings make money too, so do statues, movies, books and many other things considered creative by nature...

Now that I think about it, neither am I.

I suppose I should extend this to all forms of art in general, but I guess the point I was trying to make is, why have an industry for music in the first place asides for making money? Sure it's a method of exposing creativity and some great, but why do we find new shitty artists replicating the same things over and over from old shitty artists instead of broadening musical horizons instead of publishing and producing the same things over and over? why do we see musicians and the music industry as something unattainable by a lot of us instead of something everyone is capable of?

Once again I should extend this topic to art in general.

Hope that clarified some things. It probably didn't. Hahahahaha....
I'm not sure I even clarified it for myself.

 

[TeeBs]

Generalizations is a sure fire way to make everything look way more depressing then it truly is.

Also on a side note, Music isn't purely a art, but a Science as well. There are rules to Music, and it is easy to make a song that a majority of people who don't look for the art side of music to enjoy, but there will always be a market for people looking for experimental and different music.

 

[BonsaiK]

Sure it's a method of exposing creativity and some great, but why do we find new shitty artists replicating the same things over and over from old shitty artists instead of broadening musical horizons instead of publishing and producing the same things over and over?

The reason why we see a lot of repetition in terms of what people listen to, is because people want to hear that, so it's created to fill a demand. Also, if something is a big hit, and it's in a certain style, then it's just good business sense to not mess with the formula too much. That is, until the formula stops selling (which it invariably does) and then things gradually change. Innovation in the more mainstream end of music only happens in small steps. However a very large sector of the music industry caters to people who are more on the fringes and more willing to experiment, so you could go and investigate some of that stuff. There's more to the industry than just what's the most popular or most visible.

why do we see musicians and the music industry as something unattainable by a lot of us instead of something everyone is capable of?

That's what punk was created to address. The idea of punk was that the creative idea was more important than its execution, and that as long as you had a worthy idea you didn't have to be technically skilled or polished to perfection, therefore theoretically, everybody could participate. How successful punk actually was in turning that concept into reality is something that could be debated, but that's a question for another topic.

Might as well tackle some of the other stuff people have posted here:

You can normally tell if the musicians are in it for the money or the music. I only listen to the latter as it is just better.

That's a false dichotomy as it's possible to be interested in music and want to use music to put food on the table. I guess what you're saying is "music is the primary concern" vs "other factors are the primary concern" and trust me, you can't tell unless you've directly had a conversation with that artist. You'd be amazed how much stuff that you absolutely can't stand and that you think is awful materialistic rubbish to the core, is made by people who really believe in the art of what they're doing. On the flip side, I've had people in very supposedly non-commercial underground type bands say to me "I'm doing this for the money/blow/chicks/fame/[fill in the blank]".

I think the real problem with the music industry now is that instead of looking for people who are original and out going they look for that group who is just willing to sing half hearted emo songs to make money.

Wrong. Emo is more or less dying - existing artists are still viable but there's no market for new bands like this right now. It's yesterday's fashion, at least as far as the mainstream end of the industry is concerned.

The worst part about it is that the industry is now saying "if you don't put out this kind of sound we won't put out your records" and since every artist must now own at least six cars with some kind of semi precious metal spinning on the rims, or a mansion expensive enough to feed half of Africa twice over, the change what used to be good music into horrible sounds that alienate their old fan base.

Usually when artists change their sound, it's because those artists actually want to change their sound. Amazing but true! That type of pressure very rarely comes from the industry. In fact, the reverse is often true - if anything, management and labels will try to encourage an artist to not change their sound, because logic dictates that if sound A worked last time, sound A will work next time, whereas changing to sound B may be a risk for that artist (not to mention the label backing them). Also, why would a label want an artist to alienate their fans? That makes no business sense at all. Trust me, there's nothing that makes a label more nervous than when an artist who has built a solid fanbase making a particular kind of music starts pissfarting around with the formula and wanting to do something entirely different, even if it is more "pop"...

Basically I guess what I'm saying is that the industry is reforming, just like the game industry is, to target the biggest possible audience, and since the biggest audience for music is sad douchy 16 year olds the music will reflect that

The extremely pop end of the industry has been geared to teenagers and teenage tastes since the doo-wop era of the 1950s, and maybe even before then. However, you're talking as if only that "pop" end exists, and that isn't true. There are plenty of companies that deal specifically with the less popular aspects of popular music, and even the big four major labels will deal with relatively risky ventures via an "imprint" label.

I honestly hate the fact that most people these days pick up a guitar to be famous, kinda like a "the purity has been lost" deal.

I'm also a guitar teacher and I can verify that this one definitely isn't true. Out of the hundreds of students that I've taught over the years I could maybe pinpoint two who had "fame" as an ultimate goal. Most of the rest just wanted to bash some songs out by the campfire with their mates while drinking a beer, or join a metal band and start a mosh in some pub somewhere.

 

[Kenko]

Problem is that in most "arts" the money goes to the artist. Due to douchebag recordcompanies the music industry is bloated with synthetic crapmusic and all the real music never gets out properly.

 

[meowchef]

I'm not really a fan of any new music. Perhaps I'm lucky? My favorite band, Alice in Chains, just financed their own album and subsequent tour. They aren't in it for the money, they're in it because they love doing it. The best music is born from that line of thinking. They have lucky fans.